FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, September 3, 2009
Senate
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls, G. Boudreaux, L. Dohse, G. Ettari, V. Frank, B.
Haas, G. Heard, J. Konz,
B.
Larson, A. Lanou, K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, L.
Russell,
M. Sidelnick; J. Fernandes, A. Ponder
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Haas, E. Katz, G. Kormanik,
K. Krumpe, L. Langrall P. McClellan, C. Mercer,
S. Patch, R. Pente, A. Reagan,
A. Shope, J. Stevens
I. Call to Order, Introductions and
Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the
meeting to order at 3:19 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval
of minutes
The
following minutes were approved as distributed:
·
April 9, 2009
·
April 30, 2009 (3:15pm)
·
April 30, 2009 Organizational Meeting (4:30pm)
·
May 7, 2009 Special meeting.
III. Comments from Chancellor
Ponder
The
Chancellor complimented the faculty on their work last year and on remaining
flexible during these financially difficult times. She also lauded the Provost
for her leadership and productivity, and used the opportunity to outline
administration changes that she will institute this coming year.
· Some
of the administrative positions that were cut mean that responsibilities have
to be reassigned more broadly among faculty and senior staff.
o
The
Chancellor plans on engaging our Board to do more.
o
John
Pierce (our new CFO) will take some responsibility for state relations.
o
Jim
Fox will be helping with federal relations.
o
Janet
Cone, our Athletic Director, will be looking after some collaborative
university enterprises and will be an overlap for us with
· The
Chancellor would like the Provost to deepen her influence and her leadership and
to count on faculty, deans, department chairs, Faculty Senate, and others to
deepen responsibility and authority in the Academic Affairs division. Specific
actions include:
o
The
Library, Instructional Technology, and Institutional Research areas will be
under Academic Affairs.
o
The
Provost, will work with the Chancellor as a clear number two in the
university. Jane Fernandes will be in
charge whenever the Chancellor is not on campus and not available for more than
a day.
· The
Chancellor would like to have the Senate involved with selecting some retired
faculty to receive an honor using an anonymous gift received last spring. The gift has been used as follows:
o
$500,000
was restricted for a short list of academic high priorities.
o
$250,000
has been dedicated to equipment in the Zeis Science and Multimedia building.
o
$250,000
has been submitted to the Spangler match to create another endowed chair. Roy Carroll will be honored with having his
name on that endowed chair. That match
has been achieved. The legislature did
not include matches for the endowed professorships in this year’s budget.
o
In
close consultation with Jane Fernandes, Patrice Mitchell, and Pat McClellan, we
determined how to spend the remaining $1,000,000. The guidelines said those were for
scholarships and for women and minorities to the extent permissible by
law. That is a preference rather than a
universal application for women and minorities.
They gave us full flexibility about whether we spend it now or whether
we put it in an endowment.
§ Reserved
$400,000 to be spent in the near term.
§ $600,000
has been placed in the endowment, divided into six identical endowment funds.
§ To make the scholarships more meaningful for
students each will be named for someone.
Three will be named for retired faculty. The Chancellor would like to ask the Alumni
Council to bring the Faculty Senate five or six names that they would nominate
for its consideration. Then she would
like for the Faculty Senate to devise a process to chose the three to whom an
invitation will be extended to have their names on these endowed funds this
year.
§ On
September 10th at 12:30pm the University will recognize the
distinguished staff member of the year and we will preview Zeis. We will bring to campus the three individuals
who are retired staff to confer this honor on them and thank them. Those people are:
· First Dean of Women at UNC
· Long serving tutor of Chancellors, Carolyn
Frady;
· Long serving Administrative Assistant in
Academic Affairs, Jackie Peterson.
·
The
Chancellor expressed concern over an issue that is part of the university
system. The Raleigh News and Observer
has identified for President Bowles what he wants to be his legacy, and that is
a lean, business-like university.
Further, the news media is clear that he does not have it yet. Chancellors received some very sharp
instructions with threats of not authorizing and certifying our budget for the
year until we comply. UNC Asheville is
not over-staffed, yet we may have to cut further from the administration and
middle management. Over the next several
weeks her office will work closely with all of our processes including the
University Planning Council.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Lothar
Dohse reported for the Executive Committee.
Standing Rules and Rules of Order
(SRRO)
Dr. Dohse
noted the editorial changes made to this year’s Standing Rules and Rules of
Order (SRRO.) He explained the “Comer Rule”
which requires a first and seconding reading of documents. The Senate does not vote on a document the
day that it is brought to the Senate; the vote occurs at the following meeting. The Senate will abide by the Comer Rule, but
if Senators have a question of clarification or fact, ask the person or group
that brought the document so that during discussion the person presenting the
document is better prepared. This is a
request to make things run smoother.
Dr. Bell said
if Senators see something that is unclear, where a change is needed, talk to
the person in charge and perhaps arrange some friendly amendments ahead of
time. If we do that, also give the copy
to Sandra Gravely to make the process easier.
The Standing Rules and Rules of Order passed without dissent and
became SD0409F.
Major challenges of 2009/2010 academic year
Dr.
Dohse said we are in seemingly unstable times where everything from our
financial situation to the tools that we use change on a weekly basis. These are stressful times and emotions might
be a little rawer this year than in previous years. Keep that in mind during discussions.
He
highlighted major challenges for this academic year. Our SACS (Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools) reaccreditation is looming on the horizon and it will require new
responsibilities and duties. In this
regard, two major assessments will be completed this year: a review of Tenure and Rewards Systems, and a
review of Student Learning Outcomes.
Communication
To
maintain our communication across campus:
·
Adam Reagan will attend Senate meetings on behalf of
CSAC (Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Council.)
·
Lothar Dohse is the Faculty Senate representative on
CSAC.
·
The Student Government Association (SGA) will
continue to send reports to the Faculty Senate and time will be set aside for
Senator’s questions. The Faculty Senate
should reciprocate by having someone attend the SGA meetings. It is not necessary for one person to come to
every meeting. They meet weekly at
9:00pm. Dr. Dohse and Dr. Berls
volunteered to attend some of the meetings.
·
The Director of Human Resources wants an open
process and invites faculty to attend meetings when policy changes are
discussed. Two changes have been under
review:
§ Temporary
workers will be paid at the end of the month.
§ Time
sheets will be submitted electronically rather than by paper.
·
· Dr. Dohse would like for the Chair of the
Faculty Senate to be able to speak to the Board of Trustees, not just
listen. This was customary in the past
and he would like to return to this tradition.
First
The following document was
distributed for First Reading.
EC
1: Recommended Guidelines: Delivering
the Curriculum
Dr. Dohse
asked Senators to read EC 1 carefully.
This is not a policy. These are
guidelines that the Senate should endorse.
Currently there are very few guidelines on class size, work load, or which
department gets an adjunct. We have no
control over some of the guidelines.
General Administration used the Delaware Study as a measure of
performance. It counts the number of
courses taught without taking into consideration credit hours per course. EC 1 addresses these issues.
Question
Dr. Konz understood that the Senate was being asked to
endorse not a policy, but rather principles.
What are the next steps, assuming the Senate endorses the report?
Dr. Dohse said
upon Senate approval, it will return to the Provost. At this point there would be another process
in which sections of it would become policy and it would go into the Faculty
Handbook. Some items may not need to be
in the Handbook but they can be guidelines for the Deans to use. It can be tested and revised if it does not
work.
V. Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee Report
Dr.
George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
FWDC has met twice and
made recommendations to the Provost and to the Chancellor for standing
committees. FWDC also made its
appointments to standing committees. One
issue in making committee selections was the faculty who are involved in the
Tenure and Rewards System Task Force.
Some leniency has been given to faculty who are working on this
project. FWDC is in the process of
filling these positions.
Committee assignments
(follow-up from 04/30/09 meeting)
Dr. Heard
asked for the Senate’s indulgence in changing two appointments made to the ILS
subcommittees on April 30, 2009.
The Senate
approved the following committee changes (Heard/Bell):
·
Mark
Harvey’s resignation from the Quantitative Intensive subcommittee.
·
Patrick
Foo’s move from the Information Literacy subcommittee to the Quantitative
Intensive subcommittee. Dr. Foo will
assume the role of Chair this academic year.
Announcements
· Gary
Ettari is the FWDC representative on the Faculty Scholarship and Service Awards
Committee.
· George
Heard is the FWDC representative on the University Teaching Council.
· The SGA
appointed Eric Gant as Alternate Faculty Conciliator.
Goals
· Respond
to Code 600 of the UNC System. We
started this process last year and there were fairly major changes to verbiage
to the policies of Tenure and Reappointment, and also to Post Tenure Review. General Administration is requesting
additional changes.
· Take
a survey of faculty salaries. FWDC has
been charged to do this.
· Review
the role of the Pre-Health Committee following the retirement of Barry
Fox. We no longer have a Coordinator of
Pre-Health program. This is a position
that probably should not be a faculty member because it is a liaison to
hospitals and to volunteer opportunities.
First
FWDC 1: Revision to Post-Tenure Review Policy
(revision of SD0208F; Faculty Handbook 3.7)
FWDC
1 reflects a shift in responsibility of the Post Tenure Review process. The most significant change is that General
Administration did not want the Provost to be the administrator informing the
faculty member as to whether they have submitted a satisfactory or unsatisfactory
Post Tenure Review because that did not allow a route of higher authority to
appeal.
There
are two fairly small changes. Last year
we brought in the development plan for someone who had submitted an
unsuccessful PTR. General Administration
wanted more detail on those development plans.
The bulk of the change is GA’s desire to have someone other than the
Provost who is to convey the decision on PTR.
This proposal makes this change where the Post Tenure Review Committee
presents a decision to the Dean. The
Dean writes a letter to the candidate expressing whether they have had
satisfactory or unsatisfactory Post Tenure Review process which then opens the
Provost up to be a route of appeal. The
Provost has the final say in the case of a decision that Post Tenure Review is
not satisfactory.
Question
Dr.
Haas asked if faculty undergoing PTR this year would use FWDC 1. Will it be in the current Faculty Handbook? Dr. Heard will clarify this at the next
Senate meeting.
VI. Institutional Development
Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Ms.
Potential topics for
Institutional Development Committee
· The Mission Statement, as approved by the
Faculty Senate, was brought before the UPC and it was approved. It was then brought before the Board of
Trustees where several amendments were made.
This is clearly within their purview to do. We now have a working Mission Statement for our
SACS review. However, no Mission
Statement is permanent and we would expect this one to be reviewed as
needed.
· Assessment
in preparation for SACS review. Ms.
Nelms anticipates these topics for this year:
o
Update
the mission as it is stated in the Faculty Handbook. It includes a large section on the
Institutional Effectiveness Committee that we discussed in Senate last year but
did not reach closure on. It should be
reconstituted or removed from the Faculty Handbook.
o
Follow
up to confirm the proposed reviews for the administrative divisions. Half of the administrative divisions were
supposed to be reviewed last year.
o
Administrative
divisions, continued from 2008-09, follow up to confirm the proposed
reviews.
o
Athletics
is on the agenda for review, continued from 2008-09.
· Per
a request from a member of IDC, look at the role of IDC in the UPC.
· Improve
accessibility of policies, procedures, and guidelines. How do citizens of the campus uncover the
information that has been generated by committees? How is it implemented? When is it reviewed to see if it is still
relevant? We need to make access more
efficient. This includes items that have
been reviewed but do not appear in the Faculty Handbook.
· Informal
discussion on integrating and involving the Board of Trustees in the
University.
University Planning
Council
Since the last Senate meeting in May, there have been two
UPC meetings.
·
UPC
approved the Mission Statement as it went forward from the Faculty Senate.
· Major
topics of discussion during both sessions of UPC during the summer were budget
issues.
o
Reviewed
the latest information.
o
Revised
and confirmed the University Strategies for 2009-2011 resource allocations.
o
Discussed
areas of potential cost savings and/or efficiencies.
·
One
item taking priority is an interim appointment of a Director of Emergency
Planning. This position is funded in
part by recurring and nonrecurring funds provided by the State in response to
recent nationwide campus emergency situations.
The appointee has a background from FEMA. There will be a search later; meanwhile we
have someone in place.
Comment
Dr. Haas noted
that since the BOT changed the Mission Statement, only the IDC and the UPC
gathered and voted upon the revised statement.
He made two requests:
·
The
new Mission Statement be read into the Senate minutes.
·
The
Senate Chair address the BOT to find out why the phrase "small by
choice" was removed. Why was removing this phrase so
important? It has been in our statement
since at least 1992.
VII. Academic Policies Committee
Report
Dr.
Announcement: Lorena Russell will continue as APC’s representative on ILSOC.
Agenda for year
Historically,
APC has reviewed major curricular changes and then brought documents to the
Senate for approval. This practice will
continue. However, APC knows that
several departments are planning major curricular changes so the workload is
likely to be heavier this year than it has been in the recent past. Departments are encouraged to send the
proposals in early, before the November 6th deadline.
APC will be
executing the components of the review of the general education program that
the Faculty Senate approved last December (SD0808F.)
VIII. Administrative Reports
Academic Affairs
Enrollment
In terms of
new students we admitted 643 new freshmen as compared with 588 last year; 318
transfers as compared to 298 last year; 52 new graduate students as compared
with 40 last year. 2,278 undergraduates
returned to campus compared with 2,171 last year. Fundable FTE from 2008 at 3,169.25 increased
to 3,370.75.
Congratulations
to Patrice Mitchell and the Admissions Office.
Congratulations to all faculty who worked hard and well with Admissions
and with enrolled students to help them persist to graduation.
Review of Tenure and
Rewards Systems
In response to
UNC Tomorrow Phase II, all universities in the system are reviewing these
systems with respect to the concept of engagement and outreach activities. The Task Force that has convened to review
our systems consists of committee members:
Karin
Peterson, chair Melissa
Himelein Katherine
Min
Judy Beck Charles James Leisa Rundquist
Joseph Berryhill Bruce Larson Scott Walters
Greg Boudreaux Sandra Malicote Betsy Wilson
Task Force members are
asked to:
·
Read
a short collection of readings we have assembled based on our own work over the
summer of 2009 (now available on this website);
·
Respond
to an online survey of all faculty holding tenured, tenure-track or lecturer
positions (available soon after Labor Day weekend 2009 and lasting for about
two weeks in September);
·
Provide
feedback about your discipline’s view of the tenure and rewards system at UNCA
as well as about the concept of public engagement as it applies to your
field(s) during a department or program meeting (to be scheduled between August
2009 and January 2010);
·
Attend
and participate in meetings for specific groups of faculty, including but not
limited to groups determined by rank and type of appointment (to begin January
2010 and end in late March 2010);
·
Read
and provide feedback to the initial recommendations of our committee (to begin
in late spring 2010).
This work will continue through this academic year with a goal of having
proposals for the Faculty Senate’s review next fall.
Student
Learning Outcomes and Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process
A small team of UNC Asheville
faculty and staff went to the SACS institute in
·
Over
the summer we developed draft Student Learning Outcomes for departments and
programs to review. These outcomes have been derived from our recently
approved Mission Statement.
·
Each
department has an assessment liaison and each has been asked to send feedback
to Dr. Friedenberg by September 15th. We will need to make
every effort to agree upon a set of University–wide Student Learning Outcomes
by the end of this semester.
Decision
to close Environmental Quality Institute and
Dr.
·
President
Bowles directed all campuses in the UNC system to review Centers and Institutes
as well as low productivity majors and make decisions, especially in light of
our budget cuts, on which to continue, which to discontinue, and which we might
modify.
·
In
consultation with Deans and Directors, the Provost reviewed five entities in
Academic Affairs including NEMAC, CCC+D, PARSEC, Mossbauer Effect Data Center,
and EQI.
·
Also
reviewed in consultation with Deans, department chairs and program directors
were eight low productivity majors and three newly established programs.
Included in the review of low productivity majors were: Music Technology,
French, German, Industrial Engineering and Management, Physics, Philosophy,
Classics with Teacher Licensure and Chemistry. During the review, we
clarified that Chemistry was mistakenly identified as low productivity and
removed from the review. As a result, two majors will be reconfigured:
German and IE+M majors will be closed and converted to concentrations or
minors. The other majors under review understand the importance of
increasing the number of student majors before the time of the next
review. We also have communicated and discussed in depth more nuanced
understandings about the role of academic departments such as the essential
nature of some disciplines such as Philosophy, Classics and Physics to a
liberal arts university. The program reviews of Religious Studies,
Women’s Studies and Mechatronics were very favorable.
·
In relation to Centers and Institutes, after a thorough review we have
regretfully discontinued two: Mossbauer and EQI. The review was
multi-faceted and there were many reasons that led to the decision to close
them. Among them, undergraduate student education was not as integral to
their operation as it was to other groups and they were not as financially
stable as others entities.
·
In the case of Mossbauer, their income was not sufficient to support its
operations. In this climate assurances that changes would be made were
not sufficient to commit to its continuation. The Mossbauer lab, where
undergraduate students do research with faculty in Chemistry, is
continuing.
·
In
the case of EQI, $280,000 will be saved by not renovating the lab space.
Instead the space will be used for classrooms in support of undergraduate
teaching and learning. An additional $70,000 as a low estimate will
be saved in administrative and overhead costs to the university for housing
it. Over the past five years, EQI finances have shown a clear downward
trend. This past year, they spent $40,000 more than they brought
in. While they were able to cover the balance through their reserves, the
reserves have been steadily depleting.
·
Over
the past five years, an average of less than 3 students per year have been
involved in lab work.
·
The
Provost stressed that the decision to close EQI and Mossbauer was based on a
complex and thorough analysis of all aspects of their operations. It was
not based on one factor.
·
The
loss of majors and of Centers and Institutes was painful and difficult.
The tough economic times have led us to need to make hard decisions.
·
Mossbauer
and EQI are being phased out gradually through December 31st.
Staff will be given priority consideration for priority vacancies that arise on
campus. We will enable the data from
·
The
State Legislature has communicated to us that they are not satisfied with the
level of cuts to UNC campus Centers and Institutes and they are expecting an
additional $1.7 million in cuts. The Provost does not expect that we will
have to cut anything further at UNC Asheville.
Discussion
Dr. Stevens raised several questions related to the Centers and the
Institutes. He stated that this began
because of concerns that came from General Administration.
·
He
asked the Senate to consider information on the size of Centers in relation to
the University System. There are 275
Centers and Institutes in the UNC System.
Their total budgets come to $595 million. About $124 million is provided by the UNC
System. Universities have been asked to
cut 10 percent. GA said we have to cut
at least $12 million.
·
He
distributed two handouts that were sent to all of the campuses. One identified where cuts should take place
and how much were expected to be cut.
UNCA was not listed. UNCA was not
given a directive to cut but, as the Provost said, we needed to look at our
overall program and make cuts as appropriate.
·
Referring
to a GA report, UNCA’s six Institutes have a total budget of $3,275,325. Funds that are being provided to support
those UNCA Institutes: $710,505. Dr.
Steven said as a faculty member and as a director of a Center, where he becomes
a little disturbed is that according to the numbers from GA, no UNCA funds were
going to EQI and MEDC.
·
The
second reason that was given in terms of cutting these two Centers is based on
the one page University Strategies for 2009.
This document is used to evaluate where we are going to make cuts. No. 11 Resource Allocations: Current economic
downturn requires us to plan more strategically. He agreed wholeheartedly in terms of No. 5
Strategic Investments; four of the five speak pretty well of Mossbauer and
EQI.
·
He
pointed out that both of these Centers address faculty and students working
together, and he asked if that was not the academic core. These various Centers in the UNC System are
brought about because of the core values of a particular institution. We have done a good job at UNCA as we have
developed Centers and Institutes, and the core values of those reflect who we
are as an institution.
·
He
came before this group a number of years ago in bringing NEMAC to be
approved. It was one of the first
Centers and Institutes that our Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees
approved. He emphasized at that time that
it makes sense for us because it addresses students and it addresses
faculty. The reason Centers are
important to us is that we are very busy teaching; it is a way to bring
together collectively our intellectual strength to run a Center around an
idea. That was the main focus of
NEMAC. In the case of NEMAC, we had ten
faculty who were receiving funding through NEMAC and through EQI and through
Mossbauer. We have brought to the
university not only opportunities for the students, not only opportunities for
the faculty, but also equipment that is used in our curriculum.
·
In
the case of Mossbauer, for the last ten years he has neither received a salary
nor has he asked for or been given release time. He did it for the University and for the
larger intellectual community. He said
he had no problem with the decision but the reasons do not make sense to him. One, the Centers are not costing the
university because funds from the university are not coming in. Two, the Centers are very much involved with
the core mission of the institution.
That is how Mossbauer and EQI were formed. They started because of faculty’s passionate
interests and they provide opportunities for students and faculty. It is a little disconcerting in terms of our
values that these are now being closed. Dr.
Stevens closed his comments by saying that he wished the institute would be
more forthcoming to understand what is happening. Dr. Stevens then thanked the
Chair.
·
Dr.
Kormanik said Dr. Stevens went into a lot of reasons and issues that need to be
considered in the evaluation of Centers.
This has been especially important over the past six or seven years. UNCA has talked a lot about how Centers are
established, how they are evaluated, and how the process works to continue or
discontinue them. Policy 101, passed by
the Board of Trustees, talked about the evaluation of Centers. It was reviewed as recently as March
2009. He asked, “What was the process
and why did we deviate from our institutional procedures and policies that were
established? It involved engagement of
the Faculty Senate. Was the Senate
involved in the decision-making process?”
o Dr.
Fernandes said she had no idea we had a policy.
That underscores
·
Dr.
Kormanik said that he emailed the procedure to Dr. Fernandes in March.
o Dr.
Fernandes said it went by her if he did and she regretted it.
·
Dr.
Reynolds said the decision to close EQI is still unclear to a lot of people.
EQI still has money. EQI had lots of
grant money. Of the two reasons given
for closing an institute, it does not seem that one of them applied to EQI,
because it seems to be economically self-sufficient. She personally would make a case that in
terms of integration with the mission at UNCA there was a lot of good training
of students and a lot of environmental aid that was given to the
community.
o Dr.
Fernandes said she took her understanding from the reports. Maybe she had the wrong information but she
understood that an average of less than three students per year worked at
EQI. It is a question of whether that is
at the level that we would expect from something that is central is undergraduate
teaching. Her impression is that the
work at EQI was laboratory testing – testing of water – testing of chemicals in
the environment – and making reports of them.
That is the main work that they did. They included some students, but
the students were not the core reason why EQI was formed. Other Centers are
more integrally related to the academic core.
·
Dr.
Reynolds asked if the funding for EQI was part of the decision. Her colleagues understood that EQI had a
positive income stream and that they were self-supporting.
o It
was Dr. Fernandes’ understanding that last year EQI spent $40,000 more than it
took in but they were able to manage it because they had resources. Over the past five years EQI’s reserves have
been on a decidedly downward trend. Mossbauer
was in the position of losing money. In
determining the cost of EQI the Provost considered their allocated space, the
utilities they used, and the faculty member’s time directing it. Another consideration, though not an
overriding one, was that UNCA would not have to renovate a new lab space. The lab space will be converted into
classroom space that will directly relate to student education.
·
Dr.
Reynolds said that helps to clarify the decision. Everyone may not agree with the decision but
it helps to get more information.
·
Dr.
Patch said he thought Provost Fernandes was confused on the number of students
involved in EQI. EQI graduates
approximately three students per year who receive Distinction as Undergraduate
Researchers. Typically students were
working on two-year projects, and six students were doing research projects at
any given time. In addition, EQI had two
student interns per year, and another two to three students working hourly
wages. EQI typically had ten students
working at the laboratory at any given time.
He thought it would be useful for everyone to see the data comparing all
of the Centers on their number of undergraduate research projects and students
measures of quality like students’ publications in peer review journals. He thought EQI would compare very favorably
with the Centers that were kept open.
o Dr.
Fernandes said in the process of the review for Mossbauer, the lab in the
Chemistry department will be continued where Chemistry faculty and students
work with Mossbauer data. That is not
closing. What is closing is the
·
Dr.
Frank asked if the decision to close these two Centers is final.
o Dr.
Fernandes said the decision was final.
But she was interested in knowing how to make the process going forward
smoother so that the chance that the work can continue in another place is
optimized.
·
Dr.
Frank said in that spirit, looking forward, sometimes it depends on how you
look at it, how you describe it, and how you label it. When you asked other departments whether they
were willing to provide a home for these Centers, were you asking? Or did you tell departments to take them?
o Dr.
Fernandes said she was rarely directive – of course she asked them. She then asked, “Since when does the Provost
tell departments what to do?”
·
Dr.
Haas said one reason there are questions is that this occurred during the
summer and that is never a good time. You did not get to choose the time so you
could bring it to the Faculty Senate.
o Dr.
Fernandes said she knew that it would not be advisable to do something during
the summer but in balance for the university as a whole, it seemed like the
better choice. Part of the complication was that the university was facing an
extremely dreadful task of reducing employees in force. It was determined that it would be better to
do it at one time rather than over a period of time.
·
Dr.
Stevens referred to his second handout.
The last column indicated the number of positions that were funded for
the university. For both EQI and
Mossbauer there were no positions funded.
These are from the records that GA provided the institutions. He did not see how cutting the positions had
any effect in terms of our numbers as an institution.
o Dr.
Fernandes said it does not have an effect in terms of this handout but they are
positions at the university that count.
At the time we did that, it enabled some staff that would have been
reduced in forced to be transferred to positions that were continuing. We were able to move some of Mossbauer’s
staff to jobs. She thought that would be
important to do for the staff.
.
·
Dr.
Kormanik said the decision to close the EQI and the Mossbauer lab sends a bit
of a mixed signal with respect to UNC Tomorrow’s directive for us to engage in
applied research. That is part of our
core mission, just like our mission to educate undergraduates. They want us to adopt this as part of our
core. This decision goes against that
and is confusing.
o
Dr.
Fernandes agreed. The conundrum is that
the way that EQI and Mossbauer function there were things being done on site;
that is why Academic Affairs tried to ask departments to take them. Then one could make a better argument for
faculty members doing applied research and outreach in a real world
problem. But the way they were
structured was very much outside of the academic discipline and core. That was part of her consideration on closing
them.
·
Dr.
Kormanik said there was an option for them to restructure. That was one of the possibilities and they
were not given the opportunity.
o
Dr.
Fernandes said we tried and we did not get any entrees into that option. We never got to that part because the
departments did not express an interest in doing it.
·
Dr.
Stevens said there must be some misperceptions because when he asked his chair
about what the Provost just said, he responded that he was not asked by the
administration to have Mossbauer come in under Chemistry. It may have been the perception of another
conversation he had with the administration.
o
Dr.
Fernandes said that would be a drastic misperception. She asked Dr. Krumpe to comment.
o
Dr.
Krumpe said he was the person who had conversations with various departments,
and there was no doubt that they were not interested in absorbing these Centers
into their daily function. He thought
that they both would have – the two that were approached – if they had been
told to do so. But that is not how the
Provost operates. The departments were
given an opportunity to take these Centers – both Centers were put on the table
for multiple departments – and nobody stepped forward.
o
Dr.
Krumpe also commented on timing. When
the charge was given to the Centers in early spring semester, the Provost
specifically said to all five Center directors who were present, “I don’t want
you to tell me how your Center connects with the university. I want you to demonstrate how the university
can not function without you.” The
Provost could have accepted the first submittal of the reports and made a
decision at that time, and the decision would have been made during the spring
semester. Instead, the Provost and the
Dean engaged each of the Center directors through multiple drafts and
resubmissions of their report to give them every opportunity to make their
case. Suggestions were given on how to
demonstrate that the university could not function without them. Trying to make the process somewhat formative
or developmental and iterative led to this process extending until the end of
the spring semester, beyond graduation and into the summer. It was not done under the cloak of
darkness. It was done so that every
Center had an opportunity to demonstrate an integrative connection to the
university.
·
Dr.
Patch responded to two comments. 1) The
issue of a department taking either of the Centers is a completely artificial
one. There is nothing in the directive
that says it had to be under a department.
EQI for example is a very interdisciplinary program. It clearly does not fit into any one
department at UNCA and that would not be appropriate. 2) Regarding Dr. Krumpe’s comments, he would
like to see the data on which Centers comparatively are contributing in what
ways to the university’s mission, and why the university can not do without
them. Dr. Patch asked, “What departments
are the other Centers under right now?”
o
Dr.
Fernandes said that PARSEC is associated with the Physics department and the
curriculum of the Physics department in terms of Astronomy, and it is integral
in terms of the future plans to build an observatory. The Craft Creativity and
·
Dr.
Kormanik asked a point of clarification.
PARSEC is an inter-institutional Center for which we have the
administrative and the physical oversight.
The Center for Craft Creativity and Design is also an
inter-institutional Center. Are these
going to become institutional Centers at UNC Asheville? Or are they going to remain
inter-institutional?
o
Dr.
Fernandes said PARSEC and the Craft Creativity and
·
There
being no other questions, Dr. Dohse said Dr. Patch has a point. In the next month he will try to collect
comparative data of the Centers for informational purposes. He thanked the Provost for her presentation.
Student Government
Mr. Stephen Haas reported:
· SGA
has introduced Bulldog Bargains, a program where students, faculty and staff
who have a OneCard will receive discounts at several area establishments.
· The
ASG and the General Assembly worked to remove a $200 “student tax” fee from the
budget for next year.
· UNCA
now has a disc golf course on campus.
· SGA
is working to revamp the student Constitution.
· Several
students from UNCA and NC A&T will transfer between schools spring
semester.
· Elections
will be held next week.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
New Disc Golf course
reduces outdoor lab space for students
Dr.
Reynolds noted that the amount of space that we have available for outdoor lab
activities has again been reduced (similar to the time when the ropes course
was built in the urban forest) without any consultation with the Biology or
Environmental Studies departments who use these areas as outdoor
classrooms. No one thought of these
students when this decision was made.
XI. Adjourn
Dr.
Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Executive
Committee